conworldfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Altverse
Requests Please use this syntax to make applications easier and more organized so the Altverse community can process your application. Your Nation's Name *Nation: Your Nation's Name *Real World Countries and Land Claimed: *Why you want to join: Explanation here *Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: (Y/N) *Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: (Y/N) *Other: Your additional comments here. Aesthetics and Organisation of Altverse Page Hello! I am relatively new to the Altverse community, but I would strongly recommend that the Altverse page be revamped aesthetically and organisationally, as much of this information is outdated, and can be confusing for new nations. Thanks! Javants (talk) 07:34, January 29, 2016 (UTC) I will work on updating the list (by removing the old countries and whatnot) but what would you recommend be changed aesthetics/organization-wise? [[User:JustinVuong| ]] 01:41, January 30, 2016 (UTC) I believe that the page would benefit from a more detailed description of what Altverse actually is, considering only two sentences mention the topic. More information, particularly regarding maps, would help the page. Javants (talk) 07:58, January 30, 2016 (UTC) Invitation System How does the "invitation" system work exactly? ~Candy :If the existing composition of Altverse is interested in seeing another contributor join, based on their nation(s), they are "invitable" either explicitly (by leaving a message on the candidate's talk page) or implicitly (the user applies and as long as they satisfy any issues on their page, they are accepted). The invite system was implemented generally to prevent certain individuals from joining for certain reasons. If this was your implicit requst to join, you are invitable. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 14:59, February 16, 2016 (UTC) Yucatan and Sierra How the hell did Sierra get Canacun Dev271 (talk) 06:46, February 22, 2016 (UTC) Seceded and joined during the Mexican Revolution to avoid fascist takeover. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 14:07, February 22, 2016 (UTC) Reluctance to change small things The scale on which you are changing history can change everything it is like today (Butterfly Effect). But I dont know why you are reluctant to change very small things. I kept quiet on this thing but if Altverse really stands to its meaning then a player should be allowed to change everything he wants. For example One can change the birthplace of Stalin. Pretty much he can do everything. And as for the moderating the players country and not letting him use so many butterfly effects to make his country a heaven on earth. You guys are right here. Think about this for a while. If a player wants Lenin to lead the USSR (Lets say) and not Stalin then he can just say Stalin died in infancy or something of that sort. Cause this is altverse and altverse has moderators. Dev271 (talk) 06:54, March 3, 2016 (UTC) Thoughtful insight but we don't care. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 14:57, March 3, 2016 (UTC) Guayana *Nation: Guayana *Real World Countries and Land Claimed: * * * * ( and provinces) *Why you want to join: Because I think this nation wuld fit in well with Altverse *Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Y *Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Y *Other: If you can please can you remove Cuenia from the map. --Cheers The Road to Hell [[User talk:Dog of War|''' is paved with good intentions']] 06:54, April 11, 2016 (UTC) Approved! [[User:Centrist16| ]] 00:50, April 14, 2016 (UTC) *Nation: Rajia *Real World Countries and Land Claimed: * *Why you want to join: Because I think this nation would fit in well with Altverse/I've put more effort into this one : P *Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Y *Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Y *Other: --Cheers The Road to Hell [[User talk:Dog of War|' is paved with good intentions']] 15:47, May 14, 2016 (UTC) :Approved. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 00:09, May 15, 2016 (UTC) Russia: Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic *'Nation': Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic *'Real World Countries and Land Claimed':Russia, including Crimea *'Why you want to join:' Because I miss the geopolitical game and because Russia should exist in any geopolitical game :-) *'Have you read everything concerning Altverse?:' Yes *'Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?:' Yes *'Other:' Thanks --BIPU (talk) 18:45, April 28, 2016 (UTC) :After discussion with the rest of the members of Altverse, your application has been approved. We will be updating articles and media related to Altverse to reflect these changes shortly. Welcome! [[User:Centrist16| ]] 04:07, May 1, 2016 (UTC) ::Thank you very much. I will try to contribute as well as possible to the development of Altverse. --BIPU (talk) 10:21, May 1, 2016 (UTC) Actual map and nations Hi, I would like to ask for joining your project and in order to claim a new nation it would be right to get an updated map and active nations list. I have been reading the stuff and it is not clear what nations are still alive. Thank you. --BIPU (talk) 13:10, April 28, 2016 (UTC) :Please, have a look to this and try to update the list of active nations in Altverse. It is important for potential and current contributors to have the list and the map updated. Let me know if you need help. Thanks in advance.--BIPU (talk) 15:26, May 2, 2016 (UTC) ::Ah yes, I'll get to it when I go home. In the meantime, if you'd like, feel free to modify. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 19:07, May 2, 2016 (UTC) :::Dont worry, I can wait. :-) I have seen some nations that have been edited in recent days and seems not to be linked to any world. Are there more nations pending to be added to Altverse? (Patagonia, Rajia, Baltia,...)--BIPU (talk) 20:19, May 2, 2016 (UTC) Dirigist Bloc *Nation: Dirigist Bloc *Real World Countries and Land Claimed: , , , , , , and *Why you want to join: Because I'm a gentlemen like that, and I seek to enrich your experience by adding my own. B) *Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes *Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 19:05, July 9, 2016 (UTC) :Seems to overpowered. Stuff like "''the standard of living in the Dirigist Bloc often exceeded that in other nations in the world, surpassing even the United States and Argentina as the world's most economically prosperous nations per capita; the creation of the Fourth World under Dirigist control; wielding the world's third-largest and most advanced economy." makes it seem ludicrously overpowered. The fact it also ends "troops abroad to...remove regimes according to its independence foreign policies" will probably end up in it getting the (especially when considering that in a post-1945 world Dirigism/fascism would seem unappetising compared to American liberalism or even Soviet communism. which at least nominally promotes democracy and equality of outcome). Also seeing how Dirgism promotes autarkey its unlikely it would maintain a really large economy - the modern world necessitates that you have to integrate yourself into the globalised economy (even countries with gargantuan amounts of oil (a commodity that will always be in demand) like Iran are put at a disadvantage because of its lack of access to world markets). The top three economies (USA, China, Japan) all maintain very liberal free trade policies (Japan and China would never have entered the top three if they didn't fully integrate themselves into the word economy). :Also between the French Revolution and the partition of India Britain would never let a colony declare independence (they were very quick to crush revolts in India and Africa). At most they would give them dominion status like Canada (and even then, only if the whites - eg. South Africans - were kept in charge). No non-white state would merit the new imperialists in Europe's respect unless they defeated a European state in combat (the only one to do so, Imperial Japan, was lucky to pick a fight with the weakest of the European states, Tzarist Russia). :I would recommend toning it down a bit from a to a (perhaps more like say , , , or ) which would not only be plausible but more interesting then "muh most powerful nation"--Cheers Sweet potato tastes good,[[User talk:Dog of War|''' I like it']] 22:29, July 9, 2016 (UTC) ::While I would be more than happy to oblige, the United States broke from Britain rather successfully. Note that this is before the advent of the truly powerful British Empire as we know it, and it wasn't capable of deploying tens of thousands of troops abroad as it did in the latter era of its history. At most, it could deploy perhaps 25,000 to a single theater, but ''only a single theater. Also consider than Australia is rather far from the industrial base of the British Empire, meaning that supporting the troops needed to fight in Oceania would be next to impossible. If we consider the number of troops devoted to the war, then no more than 15,000 could be sufficiently supported at once that far from Britain. Imagine the Boer War but far worse for the British. They don't know the lay of land, they're too far from home, and they can't count and reinforcements from other territories as was the case in South Africa (by which time the British territories were able to send their own units). The same goes for France. Before 1850, there is really very little a European power can do beyond the Atlantic Ocean, given the dominance of sails and the lack of truly industrialized states (remember that Britain began industrialization in 1821). ::What you must also consider is that Australia is a continent the size of Europe. It possesses all of the resources an autarky would require to realistically survive. For instance, Australia can maintain an independent energy policy given its vast supply of coal, oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy. It produces most of the world's uranium meaning that nuclear energy is also a self-sufficient area. It has so much of this stuff in fact, that it could industrialize without having to import the resources, and maintain an industrialized economy without importing oil and natural gas. Food-wise, Australia and New Zealand produce more food than they actually consume, and boast some of the world's most fertile farmlands. You may not like it, but the facts on the ground today support my claims for a self-sufficient economy. The reason autarkies rarely work is because all the nations that tried it lacked the resources, having to import rare earth minerals, food, or energy. The Soviets managed it perfectly, but the centrally-planned economy destroyed the nation's ability to develop new industries for a civilian economy, leading to the Soviets having to import grain from the West (everything was geared toward what the military needed first and the people second). Also, Japan was always resource poor, and China had a planned economy like the USSR which killed economic growth and social mobility. ::Also consider that at no point do you see blacks in government before independence for my nation. All governors and military leaders were the original ones from OTL; though as in Sierra Leone, given that it was a purpose-made black colony many functionaries were blacks. As for the latter part, what an imperialist state wants and what it can realistically do are two entirely different things. Haiti defeated France and gained independence. The French wanted to invade again but malaria destroyed the nearly 100,000-strong army it sent the first time, so it settled for veiled threats to bully Haiti into paying reparations. Ethiopia beat Italy, and though the Italians wanted to return, it was extremely unpopular back home, and the invasion was stalled for four decades. And the United States beat the United Kingdom, and it though it was entirely possible for the UK to invade again, it was too expensive and not worth with costs to going back to war. Australia was widely ignored even under British rule because the land was largely uninhabitable according to most Europeans, and only produced wool, a resource that could be gained from any other location. Sending thousands of troops to retake what at the time appeared to be mostly desert and spider backwater for wool would not be politically feasible. Rather, you would see the British devote more resources to India and Burma rather than Oceania, two more lucrative regions in the eyes of the typical 18th-century British politicians. ::Finally, the nation is not overpowered. Australia and New Zealand are both incredibly wealthy. In our time, Australia and New Zealand had the highest GDP per capitas in the world by 1900, and incredibly productive territories following industrialization. The problem with globalization is that people believe that it is a fact of life. It isn't. Think of the man with a fish. It may seem cheaper to just give a man a fish, but if you teach him to fish, though it may take time for him to get it right, he'll ultimately pay for himself. Stick with globalization and you'll never learn to develop and maintain advanced industries on your own. I mean, globalization led to Kenya importing tons of cheap clothes from the West, and destroyed 90% of the nation's local clothing industry. Kenya no longer produces its own clothes even though it could, but it would cost money to rebuild that industry from the ground up. It costs more to produce things locally, but they pay for themselves as time passes and the productive method becomes more streamlined. Australia has the raw materials to support a large population independently, maintain an industrialized economy thanks to its abundance of raw materials, and the location necessary to maintain a powerful yet independent society. I didn't pick the location because I needed a place to work on a nation. I picked it because Oceania has all of the resources, territory, and history required for a dirigist society to actually work. ::The nation is fine as it is. This is Altverse (alternate universe) is it not? Well in this alternate history, Australia never limits itself as a dominion of Great Britain, and instead grows and expands as an independent nation like the United States. In reality, Australia is simply under-strength because it never capitalized on its advantages. If given the chance like the United States or the Soviet Union with continents full of resources, Australia would realistically be just as powerful. I'm sure you did your research for Manchuria and Qatif, and likewise I did mine for Australia and Oceania. I didn't just pull this stuff out of my behind. Also, I said the nation was self-sufficent, but I never said that they couldn't trade with other nations. And I don't see the similarities between dirigism and fascism. Care to enlighten? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:30, July 9, 2016 (UTC) :::Also, Russia lost not because it was the weakest European state (most European nations thought Russia would win given it had the largest army and third-most powerful navy in the world). It's military leaders were incompetent, its war was on the opposite end of a single-rail network on the most undeveloped side of the nation, it had to send its massive naval force to the other end of the planet to fight, and most importantly, the British helped the Japanese win the war. Russia simply found itself at the mercy of war's most powerful twin sisters; nature and geography. It took several European powers to fight Russia by itself during the Crimean War. Japan was in no way capable of defeating Russia alone. It just managed to be located on the least-populous and least-developed end of a very powerful nation which had its military forces located in the most-populous and most-developed end of its territory on the other side of the planet. Say much like the British Empire and Australia in this case... Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:37, July 9, 2016 (UTC) America's independence made British colonial policy much more wary of colonial uprisings. Before America's independence Britain took a more lasseiz-faire approach to colonial governance, but the American Revolution made it so Britain remodelled its colonial policy so it would crush any independence movements at the drop of a pin (hence why I said Britain between the French Revolution which was after its American counterpart and the partition of India was wary of colonial uprisings - the sheer scale of a potential Indian uprising after WWII prompted Britain to retool colonial policy - before that they would have crushed any colonial uprising, and did so after the partition of India anyway). The American Revolution (and later Haitian revolution for France) hardened European colonial policy. Also there's the fact that during the 1800's Britain was an industrial superpower who was only matched in economic strength by the United States The Soviets only achieved massive economic growth because they centrally planned the economy in the first place. The USSR would never have industrialised as an autarkey if they had not brought agriculture under state control and to put in bluntly steal the food from the peasants and give it to urban workers'. The inherent irony of the Soviet economy was without central planning and state control of agriculture economic growth and industrialisation would have been impossible in the amount of time it took but with it it led to stagnation down the line and was impossible to reform. Other industrial states (USA, France, UK, Japan) industrialised through a mix of free trade, state funding and lack of regulations or in the case of China used similar methods to the USSR (i.e state funded investment with agricultural shortfalls in industrial centres being made up for by requisitioning from the countryside). As stated, the closest thing to a modern autarkey with large natural resources was Iran under international sanctions, and they were outperformed by other states that had the same resources who were part of free trade agreements and integrated into the global market. The other thing is that an autarkey will find it hard to function in a modern economy without a planned economy - large businesses generally like to compete on an international level. The only time "capitalist autarkey's" existed for any period of time were the fascist states of the 1930's (who existed in a time where tough protectionist policies were imposed in most major nations) India under the Licence Raj (which bankrupted the country) Afghanistan under the Taliban (granted, that was more feudal then capitalist) and South Africa after sanctions were applied to it in the 1980's (which also bankrupted the country). Bearing in mind South Africa especially had cheap labour, competent administration and an abundance of natural resources Finally, on globalisation. Of the ten largest economies only one, Russia, maintains a semi-autarkey which probably puts them at a weaker economic level to the rest (since the 1960's the Russian economy has consistently under performed). China and India were both a lot poorer before entering the globalised economy whilst Japan's economic growth can be attributed to its export focused economy (the same can be said for other Asian tiger economies such as South Korea and the Republic of China). New Zealand is also an example of globalisation working - when tore down NZ tariffs and protectionist policies and put NZ in the global economy its economy improved massively. Of the G20 economies only one - Russia - maintains an autarkey (the rest are more or less globalist in their economic outlook). Also, another reason why Australia/NZ had high GDP's per capita is the fact that their populations are quite small compared to other major nations (Australia has a smaller population then the world's only effective autarkey, the DPRK), whereas the Dirgist State has one that is larger then Vietnam's. You mention my nations - well, generally they are pooled from the rl economic data of the country in question (Qatif's is based on the UAE's economy, Rajia's on the economic growth of Myanmar prior to the Burmese Way to Socialism and Manchuria's by splicing together the economies of three Chinese provinces it consists of). If you pooled together the Australian, NZ, New Caledonian, Fijian and Vanatun economies and assuming they would stay the same your economy would by $1,411,572 million - larger then but smaller then . That should more be the range you are aiming for at the most. --Cheers Sweet potato tastes good,[[User talk:Dog of War|''' I like it']] 00:57, July 10, 2016 (UTC) :Once again, the British were a superpower, yes, but they had only ''entered the first phase of industrialization in the 1820s. The British home islands could not support a massive military with a pre-industrial economy, with the Royal Army only have 110,000 troops between 1820 and 1830, most of which were located in Europe and spread about the globe. Remember, the British had troops tied up in India fighting the Maratha, in Burma as an occupying force, in West Africa fighting the Ashanti, and the home islands for protection, as well as numerous other locations at the time. Now, you have a choice of retaking a massive, largely inhospitable territory with no discernible resources of notable worth at the time, and in the middle of nowhere. The strategic and financial gains to be made from retaking Australia were negligible at best. Would the British make an effort to retake the continent? Absolutely. Would they stick it out until the won with no long-term gains to be made? Absolutely not. Consider the fact that they also have a war in Greece and Portugal to deal with, and the massive armies of the West African and Indian kingdoms to combat, devoting countless resources to take a continent they didn't even bother trying to colonize for a century beforehand would go against the logic of the time, industrialized or not. As was the case with Roman Britain, it cost more to maintain the infrastructure, the garrison, and the government than was taken out through trade and taxes. :No one disputes the fact that central planning helped the Soviet economy to modernize, however, it was always behind the rest of the world because the communistic ideologies which drove its economy killed innovation and financial development. It's one thing to catch up to the global economy, and its another to outshine it. What would be the point of developing a financially successful company if the government is just going to take the profits you make and redistribute them in the name of "fairness" and "equality"? The Soviet Union never produced any Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerburgs because it killed innovative ideas and incentives to achieve success. Everything it had was a product of some other nation's developments or a military venture to keep up with the more economically prosperous nations. It had the resources to build a economically powerful nation, but it didn't have the structure which allowed for individual success in the market. On the subject of Iran, it was never able to maintain its high-tech infrastructure because it lacked a intellectual and technological base to do so. It was sanctioned on all levels to prevent it from developing, and it lacked the infrastructure to compete independently, as it was an oil state. It was too heavily dependent on a single resource, so that when it had to operate without trade, it lacked the physical infrastructure needed to perform economically. :As for the License Raj, it was a socialist economy, not a capitalist one. It had a planned market under Nehru, which was the reason he was able to gain the support of the Soviet Union during the Cold War against Pakistan. It was a policy of the United States to try to contain India by supporting Pakistan militarily and financially, as India was a potential gateway into other parts of the globe for the Soviets. It wasn't until the 1990s that it became a capitalist state, by which time the concept of autarky in India was blackened by Nehru's socialist planned economy. As for South Africa, as I stated beforehand, it always costs money to develop industries before they are financially profitable. The sanctions hit South Africa before it industrialized to European levels. At the time, South Africa imported most of its finished goods, though when sanctions hit, it was forced to develop its local industries from scratch, which took money the state didn't have. Eventually, the cost of developing all of those vital industries it needed simply forced the nation back into the global economy. An autarky is like building a house from scratch versus simply buying one. It costs more money to build a house from scratch than to actually buy one, though once you do build the house, the equity you can earn effectively pays for the costs. The problem is, most nations like people who build a house from scratch, don't stick it out until the end, because the debt becomes too crushing before the profits finally kick it. Most of South Africa's automotive and defense industries are direct descendants of the autarky projects, and are extremely profitable because of it. The nation has industries it never would have developed had it not experimented with autarky. :As for the fascist economies, let's take a look at Germany. Germany was self-sufficient in all but a handful of important goods. The reason autarky fails is because the nations experimenting with it lack the materials to support it. Nazi Germany had no rubber, little iron ore, and not enough land to support an independent agricultural policy. The purpose of Hitler's Lebensraum was to acquire enough land to support the German people independently of all other nations. He wanted Russia and Eastern Europe's farmlands, Scandinavia's iron ore, and the Caucasus's oil fields. Rubber was something the Germans had to import, but synthetic rubber was already being researched around the world. As this site indicates, Germany simply lacked the required materials to support autarky within its own borders. My nation on the other can support all of the industries it needs because it has its own iron ore, croplands, and rubber industries. Synthetic oil takes a lot of coal to produce. Australia has the world's largest untapped oil reserves. Australia's economy is build on mineral exploitation, so we know it has the resources to survive without imports. You name it, Australia has it and then some. So autarky's biggest hurdle as was the case in Nazi Germany, the availability of critical resources, is negligible with Australia. :Russia's economy has underperformed for a few simple reasons. The first is corruption. Most company owners pay out bribes to government officials to get around regulations, which means that efforts to rebuild the post-Soviet economy has slowed. The second is the direction of the economy. Russia's agricultural industry was underdeveloped, and it took the recent sanctions to force the Russian companies to finally start investing in food production. As for industry, because the Soviet Union industrialized the region, most of the industries were geared toward military production, which I outlined earlier. In fact, I was watching RT a few days ago about this very subject. The host was speaking with an economist, who told her that Russia focuses too heavily on military industries, and not civilian industries, and the host attempted to deflect by saying that it was a trade off as the military innovations tended to help the civilian economy, but the economist continued with the fact that that does not fix the fact that the civilian industries were underdeveloped. And the third is the lack of manpower. The Russians have lots of land but too few people to develop it. Unlike the United States which always had enough people to maintain industrial self-sufficiency, the Russians always lacked skilled manpower for industries it needed to grow. The nation's largest tank builder is in the Urals, and the largest jet fighter producing in far eastern Siberia. The cost of moving all of that equipment around is outrageous, and the nation lacks infrastructure density. The nation is too big, and lacks the manpower needed to develop all of it unlike the United States. :Once again, China and India had planned economies, which stymied growth in their economies. Japan and South Korea have export-focused economies but that makes them victims of global economic downturns. Like the Saudis and Iranians but without the oil, an export-focused economy is still a bad thing as it means you like the ability to sustain it during global recessions. China is currently trying to promote consumerism because it knows that it will reach a point where its goods cost too much to make it the one-stop shop for foreign companies looking for cheap labor. Factories are closing before foreign demand is shrinking, and there is little local demand for goods that can't be bought elsewhere. Textile factories are moving to India and Bangladesh, while mining and drilling work are moving to Africa. Before the 1970s, most demand for American goods was local. There was no need for high-end exporting outside of military and industrial goods because the companies were relatively small focused on local consumption. When globalization kicked in with the introduction of China on the global market, nations that were once able to survive on local goods became puppets to the ever-changing winds of foreign demand. Those Asian Tiger economies you spoke of all witnessed economic disasters during the Dot-com bubble burst because internet service industries were not tooled toward local consumers. There was no cushion for the economy to land on. :The DPRK is poor because it never industrialized like South Korea. All of its industries are dominated by military goods like in the Soviet Union, and it has no local consumer base for existing goods. It has poor farmland because of the mountainous terrain and cold weather, which makes food production all but impossible during most times of the year. Mind you, you are comparing my state to socialist economies which never had the ability to grow because of planned markets and innovation killing ideologies, small nations which lacked the industrial base or resources to develop them, and financial systems which kill local consumption of produced goods and tie economies to ever-changing global demand, but not the actual system I proposed and the resources which allow it to grow. Australia and New Zealand's GDP per capitas are high not because of the population, but because of the quality of the goods that they produce. People are more than willing to buy an $50 item from either of those nations because they know that the product is well-made. It's call consumer confidence. No one would ever spend that much on a Chinese or Vietnamese item because they know their goods are cheaply made. It's the reason you buy a watch from Rolex but not from Wal-Mart. Australia's GDP per capita is on par with that of Germany's, which has a population slightly smaller than the Dirigist Bloc's. Given that this is a merit-based society which focuses on quality over quantity (as opposed to Russia, China, or North Korea), goods are both well-made and well-received. This allows for the current GDP per capita as it is already. And remember, GDP per capita and actual take-home pay are two different things. In Luxembourg, the average person makes $104,359, but only takes $55,387 after taxes. The cost of living in an autarky will always be high yet reasonable, but the cost of goods will be lower without harming the standard of living. A third of an Oceanian's income goes to taxes and other costs, meaning that they walk away with about $25,000–30,000, comparable to someone in living in Canada or New Zealand if single or Greece and Israel if married. :Ya feel me? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 02:27, July 10, 2016 (UTC) After deliberations with the community, we cannot accept the current application given the current statistics and in-character strengths of the nation you've provided. However, if the Dirigst Bloc can be toned down in its power to that of a regional power or great power akin to say Israel or Indonesia, the application will be approved. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 20:04, July 17, 2016 (UTC) :I suppose reason just doesn't work all the time. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Oh well, best of wishes on your project. Maybe another time. Salt King away. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:39, July 21, 2016 (UTC) Dalmatia *Nation: Dalmatia *Real World Countries and Land Claimed: *Why you want to join: because why not *Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yee *Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: See above *Other: shqip shqip Your application has been approved. Just work on it more and we're golden. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 20:04, July 17, 2016 (UTC) [[User:Bowwow828| ]] [[User talk:Bowwow828| ]] [[Noven Anno| ]] 07:36, July 16, 2016 (UTC) Joining Any chance I can re-join the altverse project but as a different nation. I am hoping to create a nation based on oen of my current projects. HORTON11: • 20:24, September 9, 2016 (UTC) :Yes, you are more than welcome to re-apply :) [[User:Centrist16| ]] 01:19, September 10, 2016 (UTC) Alright, I would like to apply with Mariana. Hopefully the page is good enough to be considered. HORTON11: • 18:34, September 16, 2016 (UTC) I see no reason to raise any objections to this. Also, if you're interested, you are invited to join us in our Skype group. More details here. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 19:32, September 16, 2016 (UTC) Alright, thanks. Now, are there any ways to link Mariana with the other existing nations? Having relations, persons with links to both nations, historic events etc? HORTON11: • 20:12, September 16, 2016 (UTC) Historically-wise, unfortunately not (at least in terms of player-controlled nations), or at most, it would be very minor, since the majority of the countries are in North America or East Asia, and the Mariana is a collection of small islands off the coast of Spain (unless it is actually much more significant than being "mere islands", but even then, it would be a stretch). However, pages on relations can definitely be created, and I could make articles on famous Marianas in Sierra. One organization of interest however, I could see Mariana join (the Point Dana Group). Let me know what are your possible ideas. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 21:59, September 16, 2016 (UTC) Yeah, youre right. What if we just simply re-added the Trucial States? Former member, developed already and it would be a medium global player as opposed to Mariana. I wanted to find a way to use my Brunant project towards a larger nation, but I saw no easy way to do so. HORTON11: • 19:58, September 18, 2016 (UTC) :That could work just fine. We can reincorporate the Trucial States whilst also still retaining Mariana. I have no objections towards that. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 21:43, September 18, 2016 (UTC) ::Alright, lets just do that then. HORTON11: • 13:02, September 19, 2016 (UTC) I would like to ask the people of Altverse to remove my ban. Since I have not been bugging anyone now. And I would like to be given another chance to join the Altverse community. I have been brushing up my history. And a lot of time has passed since I was banned. Dev271 (talk) 06:39, September 19, 2016 (UTC) :Your ban has been temporarily lifted. Let's see what you got. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 11:29, September 19, 2016 (UTC) Current altverse Maybe it should be made clear which nations are actually in the project for clarity. Some of the countries that wil be preserved are not listed further on the page, and many other pages are very outdated. HORTON11: • 13:59, September 19, 2016 (UTC) Justin answered a similar question recently on my talk page. 77topaz (talk) 01:29, September 20, 2016 (UTC) Map key The colour key underneath the map doesn't seem to match up with the map at all - it looks like the map key and nations list are out-of-date with comparison to the map. 77topaz (talk) 06:46, May 19, 2017 (UTC) They are indeed, and it has been a while since the page has been updated overall. It will eventually be updated to reflect the current canon, as some applications have been tentatively processed (as canon), and most discussion/roleplay surrounding Altverse is now hosted on our wiki's official Discord server. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 06:50, May 19, 2017 (UTC) Haiti *Nation: Haiti *Real World Countries and Land Claimed: *Why you want to join: I think therefore I am... *Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes *Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes *Other: Rawr. >:V Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:36, June 19, 2017 (UTC) :Although I still have reservations with the GDP per capita, beyond that, I have no serious issues with its history and development itself. I think Haiti would be an interesting addition to Altverse, particularly in the diplomatic dynamics of the Americas. The Australia Purchase tidbit of Haiti is still quite controversial though and will be discussed to see if that part will also be canonized after Haiti is incorporated. Personally, I would prefer the initial iteration of Haiti's expanded imperial conquests, namely those in the Caribbean and West Africa (I believe you mentioned Sierra Leone?). Haitian presence on the South American mainland (possibly British Guiana?) would be interesting as well. Foreign policy-wise, as you maintained, Haiti would have no interest in meddling with Anglo-American affairs although I think it would be fair to say that it would still be a member of the Conference of American States nonetheless. I am thinking of perhaps Haiti and Sierra having historical connection with the Nicaragua Canal, possibly joint occupation during the 20th century. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 00:46, June 19, 2017 (UTC) :Well Australia being a non-issue, I stabbed the GDP per capita with a pointy stick already. It's high as intended, but not Qatar high (more of a Switzerland high). Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 05:05, June 19, 2017 (UTC)